Trust in negotiation agents plays a crucial role in their adoption and utilization. However, there is not enough research on what factors influence it. This paper aims to investigate how different explanations of a negotiation agent’s strategy affect human trust and decision-making. Specifically, it compares the effects of a truthful explanation and a neutral explanation on trust in a conceder negotiation agent. An experiment was conducted involving human participants interacting with a negotiation agent in an imaginary negotiation scenario. The participants were divided into two groups, with one group receiving a truthful explanation of the agent’s strategy, and the other receiving a neutral explanation. Trust levels were assessed through a questionnaire and the results were analyzed using an independent samples t test. No significant difference was found between the two groups, but further research needs to be done before conclusions are drawn.